[engineer] Technically, that is a measure of energy. In the english units, which suck, Pounds can be mass or force. However, in the context of foot-pounds, it is generally assumed to be force, since there is no reason for distance and mass to be together as a descriptor. distance times force is work, aka, energy. [/engineer]

Sorry, my bad. It's been a while since college. And I was a philosophy major, anyway... physics was one of only two courses, I think it was, where I got anything below an A-minus. Not one of my stronger fields of knowledge.

Most "accidents" aren't really accidents in the sense that you're probably thinking. In almost every such case, it's not an accident, it's someone being a smogbrain. For a gun to truly go off by accident (for example, by dropping one on the floor, or something like that) is extremely rare.

They can go off accidentally, but it's very very unlikely. I'd bet that 99.9% of the time guns fire, somebody pulled the trigger.

That is what I thought. So, in your experienced opinions, would you say that in cases where a gun owner says "the gun just went off", it is most probable the gun owner is full of crap?

Yes. (Who says there are no simple answers?)

Quote

My opinion is anyone who accidentally shoots anyone, including themselves, should be a candidate to have their gun owning rights revoked on grounds they are irresponsible idiots and a threat to society.

I have a problem with this. These guys are assholes and are just making the problem harder. The gun nuts are cheering them on, while people who aren't gun nuts feel intimidated. Picture this: abortion rights activists protesting and armed. Anti-abortion rights activists show up to counter protest. Also armed. What is the real difference between that and the Bloods and Krips showing up at the same block?

I have a problem with this. These guys are assholes and are just making the problem harder.

Absolutely agree, but these types of people likely have zero interest in solving the problem. They're there soley to feed their 2nd amendment egos, standing around going "look what I can do!" It seems on par with claiming 1st amendment rights after yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

If you post against guns you don't want to be accused of propaganda, piling on, but if the Texas DA and his wife and a deputy are shot to death, they are still shot to death, whether it's reported to often or not. It is happening over and over and over. Maybe the media should stop, so people can whisper to each other during the funerals standing out in the cemeteries - " shhh, they were shot." Much like George Dubya not wanting photographs of soldiers coffins coming in at Dover Air Force Base. Shhh, its war, just ignore it. It really isn't a problem if we don't know what to do about it.

Gun laws appear to work. There is a correlation between states that have lax gun laws and the number of people killed therein. Yeah yeah yeah, correlation is not causation. I know that.

It is not a perfect study. I would like to have seen a regression analysis that accounted for poverty and education and probably a couple other factors. Because, not coincidentally, all the states with the lax gun laws and high gun murder rates also happened to be the stupidest and poorest states.

But, we can say that having strict gun laws does not cause high rates of gun violence, as many gun nuts would have us believe.

In going back reading this thread, it occurs to me that I've not been nearly gracious enough to Dante and pianodwarf. I would like to thank you both for disagreeing with me in the kindest and most impersonal ways, and for the occasions on which you have demurred points. I really appreciate that.

In going back reading this thread, it occurs to me that I've not been nearly gracious enough to Dante and pianodwarf. I would like to thank you both for disagreeing with me in the kindest and most impersonal ways, and for the occasions on which you have demurred points. I really appreciate that.

Thanks. I've been practicing. (Not a joke. This is one of my "hot button" topics, and I don't like it when the rational skepticism I've worked so hard to achieve gets fogged up. I'm kind of like Sarek on this one. "I confess that my logic is uncertain where firearms are concerned.")

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

In going back reading this thread, it occurs to me that I've not been nearly gracious enough to Dante and pianodwarf. I would like to thank you both for disagreeing with me in the kindest and most impersonal ways, and for the occasions on which you have demurred points. I really appreciate that.

Thanks. I've been practicing. (Not a joke. This is one of my "hot button" topics, and I don't like it when the rational skepticism I've worked so hard to achieve gets fogged up. I'm kind of like Sarek on this one. "I confess that my logic is uncertain where firearms are concerned.")

Aye, seconded, pd. I've had to delete and rewrite more than one response, but I do appreciate having my viewpoint challenged and learning new things as well, so a reasoned debate with reasonable people is always appreciated. So thanks, screwy.

Gun laws appear to work. There is a correlation between states that have lax gun laws and the number of people killed therein. Yeah yeah yeah, correlation is not causation. I know that.

It is not a perfect study. I would like to have seen a regression analysis that accounted for poverty and education and probably a couple other factors. Because, not coincidentally, all the states with the lax gun laws and high gun murder rates also happened to be the stupidest and poorest states.

But, we can say that having strict gun laws does not cause high rates of gun violence, as many gun nuts would have us believe.

I've yet to have time to read the links in detail, but I did notice right off the bat that there are some states in the [strong laws] bracket with some of the most gun violent cities, i.e: Michigan (Detriot) and Illinois (Chicago). There are large parts of certain cities in Cali and Jersey that aren't particularly safe, either.[1]

I've yet to have time to read the links in detail, but I did notice right off the bat that there are some states in the [strong laws] bracket with some of the most gun violent cities, i.e: Michigan (Detriot) and Illinois (Chicago).

For sure. There are reasons for that. In the case of Chigaco, part of that is because Illinois borders three states a with lax gun laws - Indiana, Kentucky and Missouri.

So Chicagoan villains can easily get around illinois gun laws. I sort of see states without good gun laws as kids whose parents don't get them vaccinated. They are putting the vaccinated ones at risk too by giving the disease a place to hide out. It is hard to make gun laws that prevent the wrong people from getting guns work when there are so many loopholes.

This was one of the reasons Mayor Bloomberg sued Virginia gun dealers. A lot of the guns used for crime in NY come from Virginia, Pennsylvania or other neaby states with weaker laws.

I don't know if you've been following this or not, but there have been quite a few cases where people were recording police carrying out their duties, and the police have ordered them to stop and confiscated their equipment, and even arrested them, if they didn't. It's very worrisome. Courts have reiterated that police going about their duties in public places have no expectation of privacy and that it's perfectly legal to record them, but a lot of cops don't like that, and it's still happening.

Couldn't find a good one that just had the law in it. Every one I checked was a lot of extraneous "reporting". Feh. Reporters. Ego maniacs. I'll keep looking. +1 to anyone who finds it first.

I'm not finding anything on NH, but Connecticut was making news this week having just passed some new measures.

I cant find a link to the actual law, but according to the news sources I'm reading, it's pretty much ,

banning more "assault" weapons

limiting magazines to 10 rounds

requiring universal background checks for all firearm transfers

I don't think the banning those particular weapons will have any effect on bullet related deaths.

The magazine limit has a grandfather clause letting those with higher capacity mags to keep them if they are willing to register them. Dumb. And unenforceable, I think. I also think that this won't have any effect on bullet related deaths.

Universal background checks may help reduce bullet related deaths if and only if, as you've alluded to before, it's federal, and not state by state.

edit to add:

One thing I've found lacking in all of these new and proposed laws is reinstating a waiting period. I think I recall seeing some stats where a small percentage of bullet related crime, and a large percentage of bullet related suicides declined when states had this law on the books.

I'm glad they are getting something done, but what the house does to it remains to be seen. The loophole is still huge enough to enable straw sales and all manner of skuduggery. I really think all guns should be registered. That is the only way to have accountability for people who illegally transfer guns.

Btw, Dante, you should check out the Rude Pundit. He has issues with the Gun Guy, whose article you linked.

I probably should have mentioned that the RP really didn't like Gun Guy.

I thought the gun guy made some good points in the interview. But I also thought he made some goofy statements. "Respect gun guys because we need them to be custodians of the guns because guns are so dangerous." I don't get that. That sounds like a circular argument. And he dodged every effort to get him to explain himself.

I probably should have mentioned that the RP really didn't like Gun Guy.

Nah, I figured they probably weren't going to be in agreement. I don't much care for RP's schtick tho. I was also disappointed that the RP didn't really have any argument against what GG was saying, but instead just made blanket statements, refuting strawmen.

Quote

I thought the gun guy made some good points in the interview. But I also thought he made some goofy statements. "Respect gun guys because we need them to be custodians of the guns because guns are so dangerous." I don't get that. That sounds like a circular argument. And he dodged every effort to get him to explain himself.

Yeah, the interview wasn't nearly as good as the article I linked earlier. I don't recall if he said that line in his article, and right now I'm too lazy to go look it up again, but I agree he said some things in the interview that were.....off the wall? The interviewer seemed more than a little disingenuous towards the GG too, which probably contributed to that.